Yeah that's true
-
-
And wouldn’t constitute an admission of guilt? Like it would be funny if Trump rage quits, Pence becomes president, pardons Trump, Trump publicly accepts pardon, Trump gets prosecuted, and then that acceptance of said pardon is admitted into the record as evidence...
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Well, this isn't really true A pardon has no specific, clear meaning re: "guilt" or "innocence", it's just a statement the government will no longer be pursuing any action against you for your crimes
3 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @queerthecloset and
This is important, because many people pursue pardons after they've already served their sentence, as a way of "clearing their name" -- collecting evidence they were innocent and asking to be pardoned on that basis It's the same reason many posthumous pardons are issued
1 reply 1 retweet 22 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @queerthecloset and
But while a lot of people seem to accept the symbolic meaning of those pardons, other people have symbolically *rejected* pardons, on the view that being pardoned implies guilt (This has no legal meaning, once you're pardoned you can't just demand they have the trial anyway)
2 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @queerthecloset and
That’s not quite right, actually—at least if I’ve not mistaken your meaning. In US v. Wilson, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not take notice of a pardon when it is not brought before it by a party; although does not formally accept (or reject) a pardon, it is
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Jahiegel @arthur_affect and
without operative force unless one actively presents it (I suppose that a prosecutor, recognizing that obtaining a conviction is pointless if the defendant can then present his “get out of jail free” card anyhow, might bring a pardon to the court’s notice himself, but surely
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Jahiegel @arthur_affect and
at least some would proceed on principle). This was reaffirmed, and indeed expanded to unconditional pardons, in Burdick, a case that is often cited for the popularly held, but largely mistaken, idea that there inheres in the “acceptance” of a pardon an admission of guilt.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Jahiegel @queerthecloset and
Yeah, you're right -- it's complicated because the range of situations in which the President can use the pardon power is so vast, and is tied up with concepts that are actually distinct from it
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Jahiegel and
So like yeah in theory when Jimmy Carter gve a plenary pardon to all Vietnam War draft evaders/resisters, you could *in theory* as an individual say "I reject that pardon" and if you were actually arrested and brought to trial that would mean it wouldn't apply
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likes
But the actual meaning of his action was an instruction to the DoJ to stop arresting people and charging them for that crime, and they obeyed So there's no way that could ever come up
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Jahiegel and
But yeah I wasn't aware of the precedents of Burdick and Wilson, where there was already a legal proceeding scheduled and underway and as a procedural matter "refusing the pardon" meant refusing to enter anything into the record to change that process
0 replies 1 retweet 5 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.